IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9394 OF 2021 Balakrishnan Mudaliar .. Petitioner Vs.

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents ...

Mr. Sangram Chinnappa i/by Mr. Kranti L.C. a/w Mr. Kaustubh Gidh, Advocates for the Petitioner.

Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Ms. Aparna Rajeshwari S. i/by Ms. Nita Masurkar, Mr. P. Khosla, Advocates for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

...

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE : 23^rd SEPTEMBER 2025.

P.C. :

Aggrieved by the order dated 9^th March 2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (in short, the Tribunal), in Original Application No. 210/280 of 2020 by which the prayers seeking pension and other retiral benefits with interest were declined, this writ petition has been filed by Mr. Balakrishnan Mudaliar who was employed as a driver in the office of the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Thane.

2. Before the Tribunal, the following prayers were made by the petitioner in Original Application No.210/280 of 2020: -

“a) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to release the pension and other retirement dues accrued to the Applicant along with appropriate interest.

b) This Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to pay the pension of the Applicant as per prevalent scales, rules and provisions.”

3. The original application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and against that order, as noticed above, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Rule 68 of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 which provides that if the payment of gratuity has been authorised later than the date when its payment becomes due, it is clearly established that the delay in payment was attributable to administrative lapses, then interest shall be paid at such rate as may be prescribed in accordance with the instructions thereto from time to time. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 68 provides that every case of the delayed payment of gratuity shall be considered by the Secretary of the Administrative Ministry or the Department in respect of its employees and the employees of its attached and subordinate offices and where the Secretary of the Ministry or the Department is satisfied that the delay in the payment of gratuity was caused on account of administrative lapse, then the Secretary shall sanction payment of interest. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No. 36169 of 2024 titled “Narayan Pundalik Pathade v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr.” wherein this Court granted interest to the employee under the State Government at the rate of

10% on the amount due and payable to the said employee.

5. The Payment of the Gratuity Act, 1972 provides that the gratuity shall be paid to a government employee who renders five years of continuous service and it should be paid within a period of three months when the gratuity becomes due and payable to a government employee. The law relating to grant of interest by the writ Court is fundamentally a law in equity which is enforced by the writ Court in appropriate cases. In “Alok Shanker Pandey v. Union of India & Ors.” (2007) 3 SCC 545, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the government employee who was deprived of the pensionary benefits due and payable to him is entitled in equity to get interest thereon. In “Narayan Pundalik Pathade”, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance, the delinquent government employee faced a departmental enquiry. It was dropped upon his exoneration, but the retiral benefits were withheld on the ground that pending inquiry the retiral benefits shall be released shortly.

6. However, the factual matrix of the present case is quite different inasmuch as the writ petitioner suffered an order of compulsory retirement which was challenged in Original Application No.787 of 2010. The order of compulsory ret